R A T I N G C A S E S T U D Y

We created an imaginary applicant ( Award Program XYZ ) using a Staff members Award Program as our guide and evaluated strictly according to our set out criteria finally arriving at the following conclusion.

1. Purpose: A reasonable purpose; medium quantity or extent, sensible and clear. = Level 4.0
2. Criteria: A clear criteria; sensible and logical; easily understood with hints included. = Level 4.0
3. Award Image: Award graphic is moderate in design and quality - has moderate relativity to the design and / or the content of the Award Program. = Level 3.0
4. Contact Email Link: Provides an email address link and a contact email form. = Level 3.0
5. Application: Form with minimal requirements plus an alternate email link available in some pages. = Level 3.0
6. Guest book: Signing a Guest book is not a requirement to be considered for an award in this Award Program. = Level 5.0
7. Owner - Evaluator/s Qualifications: Displaying moderate informative details of Award Program Owner / Manager. = Level 3.0
8. Added Features: Minimal ( three ) additional features displayed - examples: free graphics, other 'give away's', self test. = Level 3.0
9. Award Winners Display: A mixed list of winners text links with minimum descriptions that display a mix of award winners - i.e.: Gold, Silver, Bronze etc. provided with each award type being made clear to the viewer. Winners links may be displayed in new windows ( code type relevant. ) = Level 3.0
10. Award Winners Quality: Several winners but not all met or exceeded the posted criteria. We are cognizant that Award Program owners have no control over the ongoing quality of winning web sites - allowances were made for this factor. = Level 3.0
11. Policies: Privacy Policy including consideration for the internet safety and privacy needs of children and Copyright Policy displayed.. = Level 3.0
12. Award Program Design: Award Program is of original design, not copied or adapted / derived from another, displays a good degree of excellence with a few minor flaws; meets its own criteria and has good overall operability. = Level 4.0
13. Navigation: User friendly and functional, the entire Award Program content is available within a range of three ( 3 ) clicks including any sectioned areas as the Award Program is part of a main subject web site. There is no use of browser back button and no navigation options are disabled. = Level 4.0
14. Typography: The font type is easy-to-read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text with good use of bullets, italics, bold and indentations. The font colors used do not create difficulties in reading content but could be improved to enhance the readability of the information presented. The consistent format extends page-to-page and the layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. = Level 4.0
15. Browser Compatibility: The Award Program pages are designed to display extremely well using Opera, Fire Fox, Explorer, Safari (MAC) and function equally well on PC and MAC. = Level 5.0
16. Copyright: No visible violations. Owner holds copyright and is able to provide authorization for use of all relevant elements. = Level 5.0
17. Links: The Award Program displays four ( 4 ) malfunctioning internal links. = Level 3.0
18. Right Mouse Click Disabled: No right mouse click disabled exclusive of images. = Level 5.0
19. Contacting Applicants: Owner contacts all applicants and an applicants status page is displayed. = Level 5.0

Conclusion: Award Program XYZ met all the relevant general requirements and also acquired 5 x Level 5.0, 5 x Level 4.0 and 9 x Level 3.0 rated items. However, there could be occasions when although an Award Program achieves a majority of Level 5.0 items within the assessment process, the Award program is unable to achieve the Rating Level 5.0 due to recognition needing to be given to the overall importance of other items that have been assessed below Rating Level 5.0.

Top | News

Navigation

R A T I N G C A S E S T U D Y